Don’t Get Married, Part 1

by Frost on November 9, 2011

Hear Ye, Hear Ye! Social Conservatives, Traditionalist Christians, ex-girlfriends, future girlfriends, present sort-of girlfriends, and well-meaning Grandparents who just want me to find a nice girl and settle down. It is with contrived regret that I must inform you that I will not be getting married. Not now, not tomorrow, and quite likely not ever. I will not marry on a train, I will not marry in the rain. I will not fall for the marriage scam, I will not fall for it, Frost I am.

Not only that, but I strongly recommend that all of my readers make the same decision. Don’t get married. Don’t cohabitate, and don’t have kids until you’ve done your research and have a damn good lawyer. Then, buy him a boat and call it a retainer.

My insincere apologies to all da single ladies. And the pastors. And the SoCons. Mea Culpa! There you all are, trying to resuscitate the institution of marriage and perhaps with it, Western Civilization itself, but here I am, gumming up the works. Undoing all of your hard work! You almost had my generation walking enthusiastically up the aisle. So close.

Don’t take it too hard though, crusty old farts exhorting the young men of my generation to take up the young man’s burdens. It’s not like anyone’s listening to you anyways. I’m sure you’ve noticed that there aren’t enough young people in your entire congregations to make a decent Facebook group. (Facebook? Well, it’s like a… you know what, never mind).

The problem of empty, Ben-Gay-smelling pews has not escaped the attention of the best and brightest within the Christian community, and the various congregations have been in a race to out-do each other in their zeal to disregard the Bible’s teachings for centuries. Following rules and stuff is totally not cool you see. The best way to maximize church attendance is to strip the Church’s teachings of as much of its authoritarian, uncool, square, lameness as possible.

I can’t imagine how confused the Christians and Social Conservatives must be. Most churches these days are little more than Sunday social clubs with good architecture. How could young people in the 21st century still reject the church, after all the efforts they’ve made to become as hip and accommodating as possible?

Actually, I have a confession to make: I haven’t even been inside a church in over a decade, other than as a tourist or wedding attendee. Still I predict that their attendance problems will get worse, not better in the coming decades. What will be the final number of people who ‘Like’ Jesus? How many will tweet the #GoodNews? History marches on, and if God has a plan, he seems to have neglected to make himself a part of it. Perhaps the hollowed-out remains of the houses of God scattered across Middle America can be retrofitted with 200-inch HDTVs and surround-sound speakers for a weekly schedule of NFL, NASCAR, WWF and American Idol viewings.

Anyways. I have nothing against the Church. They have their problems, I have mine. I actually regard organized religion quite highly, despite my lifelong observance as a non-believer. I just needed to get a little mockery off my chest. Christians, real ones anyway, you guys aren’t so bad.

But there’s a reason I’m getting lippy with you. Dalrock has the full write-up on Why Men Should Think Twice About Marrying A Christian Woman. Long story short, big D has warned fine young gents such as myself that a mere cross around the neck of a pretty young lady, does not a marriageable woman make. All else being equal, a girl who regularly attends Church and takes her faith seriously is almost certainly a better prospect than one who spends her Sunday mornings nursing hangovers and trudging to the drug store for a fresh valu-pack of morning after pills. But some men are apparently under the impression that Christian women are some sort of oasis of decency and commitment-worthiness, and that a marriage to one is a golden ticket to escape the cut-throat sexual free-for-all of the 21st-century western world.

Dalrock rejects this idea, citing the testimony of a supposedly conservative christian (deliberate small-C) pro-marriage advocate, who defends a fictional woman who leaves her husband for another man, based on the fact that the husband, to whom she has been denying sex, turns to pornography. As Dalrock stresses, this woman is a leading pro-marriage advocate in the Christian community. And yet, she completely absolves women of any responsibility whatsoever in a marriage.

And remember, these are the Conservatives among the mainstream Christian community. You know, the ones telling young men to get their shit together already and start getting married? The baritone section of the ‘Man Up’ chorus? Take on the burdens of manhood, say the Christians. As for the burdens of womanhood, we’ll leave them for the cleaning lady.

The various denominations of Christianity have all degraded the purity of their teachings to various degrees. The United Church is basically a weekly orgy of happy feelings and unlimited tolerance, as I understand it, while the Catholic Church is – by the standards of any pre-20th century Catholics – slightly more orthodox. What can ya do about it? Can’t argue with the Zeitgeist.

As Grerp, who knows a thing or two more about the Christian community than I do, puts it:

“The different denominations are probably (legitimately) afraid that if they take a hard line now, they will lose a significant proportion of their congregations. But that is a weak position for a leader to take, and probably why so many have abandoned the church despite its openness to modern mores.”

But I think the Churches have discovered, if only subconsciously, a useful fact of human nature: Men are naturally drawn to patriarchal, manly virtues such as duty, honour, and commitment. They jump at the chance to die horrible deaths for countries that have no love for them. They line up to do the dirtiest, most dangerous jobs, and take a perverse pride in their willingness to do them with no regard for their safety and comfort. Despite the legal realities, they happily climb the steps of their sacrificial – pardon me, marital – altar.

Give a man the flimsiest excuse to sacrifice himself for an amorphous greater good, and he will take it. The Church is not shy about lecturing Christian men on the importance of fulfilling their manly duties to society, because we eat that shit up with child-like gullibility.

The vast majority of women on the other hand, whether due to a natural aversion to sacrifice, a half-century of self-actualization-ubber-alles indoctrination, or some combination thereof, respond better to the easier, gentler, intrinsically feminist message that “pro-marriage” Christians like the ostensibly pro-marriage Gregoire parrot: Marriage is a one-way contract, women who walk down the aisle are under no obligation to ever do anything they don’t want to do anyways, and any man who tells you otherwise is an instrument of oppression, an obstacle in your supra-biblical personal quest for happiness, and quite possibly, emotionally abusive. Another viable justification for divorce, in Gregoire’s books, by the way.

Dalrock’s message to Christian men is thus: Churchgoing women are not a panacea of purity. If your Christian wife is stricken with an Eat, Pray Love-style crisis of self, your congregation will be on her side.

Whether they sip cosmotinis or communion, ye shall know her by her support group.

{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }

cem November 10, 2011 at 7:49 am

Like the often-missed Solomon II wisely stated:
“I will not give a traditional wedding to any woman who can’t give me a traditional honeymoon. If she can ignore the outdated tradition of chastity, I can ignore the outdated tradition of marital commitment.”

Frost November 11, 2011 at 12:58 am

Solomon was the man. I think I’ll print out the archive Dalrock saved for plane reading.

jack November 9, 2011 at 6:58 pm

I really consider myself to be a true socon. Maybe I am not.

Personally, I think that God always allows the Philistines to run roughshod over the faithful whenever the faithful gives God the finger.

Legions of atheist men gaming my Christian “sisters in Christ” is the logical outcome to these women subordinating the laws of God to the law of feminism and the law of attraction (tingle).

Their land will be left desolate, as it always is, and will not be restored to them until they repent in sackcloth and ashes (or whatever the modern equivalent is).

I MIGHT consider putting a ring on the finger of a formerly promiscuous girl, provided she has been through the fire of conviction and repentance. If she acknowledged that I am the one who is settling, we are on the way to reconciliation.

Until that time, I will stand aside and wait while they continue on their path and the inevitable occurs.

I have always considered myself to be more or less kind of an evangelical, but I fully support nearly everything said in the manosphere. Perhaps the betrayal by woman of all that is good has made me so that I welcome the retribution they are bringing on themselves.

I will not be an agent of said retribution, which makes me feel a bit hypocritical – kind of like someone who wants to eat meat but won’t hunt. But my value system precludes pumping and dumping these girls, even as I cheer the PUAs who are doing so.

Sometimes, a group of people become so stubborn and despicable, they remove any ability to empathize at all.

Frost November 11, 2011 at 1:03 am

I’m looking forward to writing more on the compatibility of red pill/manosphere ideas and behaviours, and a genuinely conservative view on gender relations and society. Stay tuned!

Bo Ergu November 9, 2011 at 6:43 pm

Hong Kong stand-up comedian Dayo Wong’s “proposed reform” of the marriage vow (based on initiation vows used in triad societies [i.e. mafias in the Chinese world]):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-R8XroPHG8

For those who don’t understand Cantonese (i.e. most of you I guess), the gist of it is that there are consequences if the husband or the wife breaks the vow.

For the wife, the punishment for not obeying her husband and/or not being respectful towards everyone senior to her in the extended family is to be “destroyed and annihilated by 5 simultaneous lightning strikes”.

For the husband, the punishment for cheating on his wife and/or not fulfilling the traditional duties of a husband is to be killed “by 3 stabs with 6 wounds” (i.e. a sword long enough to cut through his body, producing 2 wounds per stab).

Not that it would deter an American woman, though; after all, she’d know (wouldn’t she?) that these punishments, severely as they are, are only metaphorical.

Orange November 9, 2011 at 4:20 pm

“[…] though I do want to have children some day, marriage is not a prerequisite for procreation, or even for being a good father. ”

What bullshit. Your rights over the children you father outside of marriage are practically nonexistent. Don’t forget that the woman can always pull you up for child support and take your child away any time she wants. As shitty as marriage might be, it still gives you a chance of 50% of you having some control over your children’s lives.

The solution is to not marry to an American citizen (or any of the other similar countries in the anglosphere, for that matter). Move to Eastern Europe or South East Asia or South America and raise family there. At least that’s what I’ll be doing when I reach my 40’s…

John Rambo November 9, 2011 at 2:19 pm

Want proof that women REFUSE to condemn the crimes of their fellow women? Download and read this 11 page letter that Peter Nolan wrote to the International Women’s Club in Dublin, requesting them to CONDEMN the CRIMES that one of their MEMBERS, who is also Peter Nolan’s ex-wife, was committing against him.

Notice how NONE OF THEM would support him and condemn his criminal ex-wife:

http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9lSXfe6xZo8%3D&tabid=82&mid=409&forcedownload=true

And young men? I really do suggest you read this letter and click through to the links. It is very clear the crimes that were committed and it is VERY clear that these crimes were presented to these women as well as to the government.

Reading this letter might save your life one day.

Passing this letter to a friend might save HIS life one day.

The point I am making in this letter to these 250 women is that they have had FOUR YEARS to denounce a criminal woman and instead they have supported her and hidden her crimes from those who are new in her life.

You, as a young men, have a right to know that the VAST MAJORITY of western women take the position they can commit crimes against you with impunity. If you do nothing to fight back? Such as join CAF and register to sit on our new juries? Please do not bother me any more with your whining and moaning.

For not only have WOMEN had FOUR YEARS to be prepared to denounce WOMEN who are criminals? SO HAVE MEN. And the MEN will not do this either.

Not Jennifers father, not her brother, not her sons, not my father, not my brothers, not my best man, not my best mate, not my sons, not my male cousins, not my uncles.

Quite frankly? I am FAR more disgusted in FATHERS than I am in women.

And you fathers here ought to know that.

I can have no respect for men who are not willing to write letters like this one. I have been doing this for FOUR YEARS and in my own name MORE THAN A YEAR. Yet so many other men cower at the idea of doing the same. And so many other men REFUSE to educate themselves.

I have given you men the remedy and you refuse to use it!

Rescind your consent to be governed!

Divorce your criminal government!

Stand up on your own hind legs and tell the government and the cops that you DO NOT CONSENT TO BE A SLAVE.

And if you do not do this?

Welcome to your slavery.

Please join Crimes Against Fathers

http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com

Please take the time to read a FREE short 100 page book called “Living Free in a Fem-Nazi World”. This book is about freeing you from the fem-nazi, fem-fascist state you live in to live your life as you choose. This book will show you how to no longer be subject to the fem-nazi ‘legislation’ that claims you are a slave with no rights at all.

After reading this short 100 page book, you will understand how to become completely legally free of the feminist legal system worldwide. That is, no woman will ever be able to persecute you or harm you through false DV charges, false rape accusations, feminist divorce courts, etc. In short, you will indeed be a free man in a world of feminism, free and safe from being harmed by feminism.

Download the ‘Living Free in a Fem-Nazi World’ eBook for free here:

http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yZdxTPgDMtE%3D&tabid=82&mid=409&forcedownload=true

Stephen November 9, 2011 at 11:16 am

It’s interesting how the Church gets bashed on both sides. On one hand, the feminists claim that Christianity oppresses women (and quote Bible passages out of context for support), that Christian marriage is all about the man lording it over his wife, etc., etc. And now Frost claims something much like the opposite.

At any rate, I’ve read a lot of conservative Christian stuff on marriage, and I think you’re painting with too broad a brush.

For example: . . . “the testimony of a supposedly conservative christian (deliberate small-C) pro-marriage advocate, who defends a fictional woman who leaves her husband for another man, based on the fact that the husband, to whom she has been denying sex, turns to pornography. As Dalrock stresses, this woman is a leading pro-marriage advocate in the Christian community.”

First of all, it’s impossible to evaluate the validity of this claim without the name of this supposed “leading pro-marriage advocate in the Christian community.” It’s also impossible to evaluate the validity of this claim without having reference to Dalrock’s original source. At any rate, I have never heard any conservative Christian say that a woman should leave her husband at the drop of a hat simply because he’s using porn. Christians believe in “grace” and “forgiveness.” Far more often, I think, you’ll find Christian women hoping against hope that a marriage can be saved in spite of significant evidence that the husband doesn’t care at all. And you’ll find plenty of examples in Christian marriage books of couples who saved their marriages in spite of failings on _both_ sides.

If you read Ephesians, and you read the traditional marriage vows, you’ll find that statements like this are simply not correct: “Marriage is a one-way contract [and] women who walk down the aisle are under no obligation to ever do anything they don’t want to do anyways.” The Church requires husbands to love their wives, yes, but wives are required to obey their husbands. Does it always work out exactly like this in practice? Of course not. We’re dealing with human beings here. And I agree with you that there are plenty of Christian women who will take advantage of their husbands, consciously or not.

Within Christianity, marriage has a significance that is utterly nonsensical to non-Christians. So if you’re not a Christian, you’re right, it doesn’t make sense to get married. And even if you are a Christian, I can agree with Dalrock that “Churchgoing women are not a panacea of purity.” If you’re looking to get married, you need to make darn sure that your potential wife hasn’t bought into the nonsense that many women believe these days about what a man-woman relationship is supposed to be.

Frost November 9, 2011 at 12:34 pm

Hi Stephen,

The Christian pro-marriage advocate was the woman Dalrock cited in his original post.

I grant that:

1) As institutions go, modern churches are among the best of a bad lot. Then again, if they and the rest of the pretend-opposition to progressivism were to just go away, Americans would be forced to confront the totality of the progressive domination of the state.

2) The actual literal teachings of the Christian religion are very traditional and pro-marriage.

But Dalrock’s point (and mine) is that in practice, the church is not an effective enforcer of traditional marriage norms. Citing scripture is not an argument against this, because what we’re saying is that the overlap between scripture and the actual teachings of the 21st century Church is, to put it mildly, incomplete.

Cheers,

Frost

Savrola November 9, 2011 at 10:34 am

this piece should be published across Amerika

Johnny Milfquest November 9, 2011 at 8:16 am

Great post Frost.

I would like to underscore the point about cohabitation as well. While I was always suspicious of the state’s involvement in marriage, I still thought that shacking up together was a good idea.

Wrong!

Although your girlfriend won’t have the same leverage as a legal wife, she will still make life more difficult for you. Don’t do it guys. Living alone means living frugally, but it is totally worth it.

Frost November 9, 2011 at 1:00 pm

I hear that. Even when I’ve been in almost-cohabitant relationships with girls I was madly in love with, having my own pad to escape to 1-2 nights a week on my own was essential for my mental health. Much better to maintain your own spot, or for for budget-conscious playa, a few girls with a few spots that you can cycle through.

I kid… mostly.

Kyran November 9, 2011 at 6:33 am

Amen brother!

Ryu November 9, 2011 at 3:55 am

There is one way to tell if you are really serious.

To be fully consistent, you must admit that it would be better that your parents had never married, better had you never met your father.

That’s how to tell if those against marraige are really serious. Your mother must become the whore that all other women are. Similarly your sister, your grandmother, and if you ever have one, your daughter.

Not even Roosh is truly serious; he can’t bear the thought of his sister acting the part that so many women act with him. In this, the fundamental flaw expresses itself.

Johnny Milfquest November 9, 2011 at 5:33 am

That argument doesn’t make any sense.

My mother was married to my father back in 1973 when I was born, but were the legal and social realities the same back then?

Fuck no! Of course not. Its a different world now.

NomadicNeill November 9, 2011 at 6:55 am

You don’t need to get married to have a life long partner or have children.

Frost November 9, 2011 at 12:58 pm

I agree with Johnny and Neill’s points below – times have changed, and even though I do want to have children some day, marriage is not a prerequisite for procreation, or even for being a good father. I am actually pro-marriage in the big scheme of things, but the reality is that there is no such thing as marriage in the 21st century western world. There is an institution which calls itself marriage, but it’s a sham.

If the western world ever brings back real marriage, I’d be happy to sign up. Until then, sacrificing my own wealth and freedom on the altar of sham-marriage will not save western civilization, and as I’ll argue later in this series, the sooner men begin opting out of sham-marriage en masse, the sooner we’ll have a chance to actually bring back traditional families.

As for my personal consistency, I have no problem saying that my father was a fool for marrying my mother. Not to go into too many details, but the story of their marriage reads like a men’s rights movement pamphlet. Still, I once made a comment in passing to my father that he must have regretted entering the marriage so naive. His response was that he regrets nothing, because for all the hardship he went through, today he has three happy, successful adult children who love him.

So I agree with you that the strident anti-marriage advocates who are committed to a barren, childless life are misguided. If I had no choice other than 1) Expose myself to the risks of marriage in the present climate, or 2) Die without progeny, I would roll the dice. There is a door #3 though, and not only is it in the best personal interests of young men, it’s the only realistic path to restoring families to their natural and healthy state.

Do you have an email address I can reach you at? Shoot me one at freedomfrost25 (at) gmail dot com when you get a chance.

Cheers,

Frost

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: